As we recently discussed, President Trump has signed many Executive Orders (EOs). They are designed to swiftly administer changes that the Trump Administration wanted immediately to go into effect.
Several EOs have targeted private law firms, including Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14263, targeting law firm Susman Godfrey LLP. Susman is a top-ranked national litigation firm. The Susman EO contains six sections, five of which reflect substantive terms.
Section 1 – Background
Here, the President accuses Susman of weaponizing the American legal system and degrading the quality of American elections. It accuses Susman of engaging in unlawful discrimination, and funding of groups that undermine the US military.
Section 2 – Security Clearance Review
Section 2 identifies the Executive departments and agencies that must take action to suspend security clearances of Susman employees. They’re also instructed to stop providing goods and/or services to Susman.
Section 3 – Contracting
Section 3 requires any government contractors to disclose any business relationships with Susman. It also requires agencies to terminate contracts with the law firm. It also requires federal agencies to stop doing business with companies that work with Susman.
Section 4 – Racial Discrimination
Here, President Trump and the drafters of the EO intend to show that this EO doesn’t affect or limit the EO that targeted Perkins Coie.
Section 5 – Personnel
This section essentially directs the Executive Branch to bar anyone associated with Susman from entering a federal government building. It also prohibits the federal government from hiring anyone who’s been associated with Susman.
In response to the EO, Susman filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court.
Why Susman Godfrey?
Never before has a President targeted private law firms in the way this Administration is doing.
Evidence suggests that President Trump dislikes this law firm – and others – because of the clients they’ve represented and the advocacy work they’ve done. Susman represented voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News Network around Fox News’ repeated claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. Susman resolved the lawsuit with a staggering $787.5 million settlement for Dominion.
Susman’s complaint describes why it believes the President’s EO is retaliatory:
- President Trump told Fox News that “we have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people.”
- When asked about the validity of the Executive Orders against law firms, President Trump replied, “You mean the law firms that we’re going after, that went after me for four years ruthlessly, violently, illegally?”
- At a Cabinet meeting, President Trump stated that he found the executive orders targeting law firms necessary because “the law firms have to behave themselves,” and “they behave very badly, very wrongly.”
The Susman Lawsuit Against the Federal Government
Filed April 11, 2025, Susman’s lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Declaratory relief refers to asking a court to declare the rights of parties, usually with respect to a writing, like a contract. Here, Susman asks the court to say that the EO is unconstitutional.
Injunctive relief is a court-ordered remedy that stops a party from committing specific actions or requires a party to complete specific acts. Put more simply, it’s when a court orders a party to either do something or not to do something.
Susman’s request for injunctive relief is required to be supported by a claim that it’s been irreparably harmed. Irreparable harm is the kind of injury that can’t be remedied with money damages. Susman maintains the mere issuing of the EO has harmed its lawyers’ ability to practice law. It’s also harmed the firm’s overall business. Susman contended that it will continue to suffer harm if an injunction is not granted.
The lawsuit provides a textbook summary of how the EO violates the United States Constitution in addition to its claims of retaliation and abuse of power. Specifically, Susman argued that the EO violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The firm also argues that the EO violates the Constitution’s foundational structure including rights of due process and equal protection under the laws, thereby undermining the rule of law and the balance of government power.
First Amendment Violation
Susman argues that the EO violates its right to free speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment. It says the bedrock Constitutional principle that lawyers must “not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” is at stake.
Susman claims that the EO infringes on its First Amendment right to free speech by retaliating against the firm for views that their lawyers or clients have expressed when the law firm contends that:
The Executive cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression” or “attempt to coerce private parties in order to” accomplish those forbidden ends.
Fifth Amendment Violation
Susman asserts that the EO violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Susman claims that the EO seeks to deprive it of the firm’s protected liberty and property without any procedural protections.
Elsewhere, the complaint identifies the EO’s vagueness as another fatal flaw. Another foundational principle is that the government is required to specifically identify – and not be vague – about what’s not permitted or what might subject a person or company to government enforcement actions. Susman does this by arguing that the EO doesn’t specify what exactly prompted the EO’s punishment. Instead, the EO accuses Susman of engaging in “egregious conduct” and “conflicts of interest” without specifying what those accusations mean.
Sixth Amendment Violation
While the Susman complaint focuses mainly on the First and Fifth Amendment violations, it also argues certain Sixth Amendment rights were violated, too. In a friend-of-the-court (also known as amicus curiae) brief coauthored by Law Firm Partners United Inc., there’s a helpful explanation of the Sixth Amendment rights at stake here.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel of his choosing. If Susman isn’t allowed into courthouses – or if Department of Justice prosecutors are barred from speaking to Susman – then Susman’s clients effectively are stopped from using an attorney of their choice.
This, the amicus brief concludes, is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right that allows people to disagree with the government and to use their chosen lawyers to have their grievances impartially heard and decided.
Current Posture of the Susman Lawsuit
After an expedited hearing, the court issued a temporary restraining order in Susman’s favor on April 15, 2025.
Judge Loren L. Alikhan, of the District of Columbia District Court put a halt to the government’s enforcement of sections 1, 3 and 5 of the EO.
Later in April, Susman moved for summary judgment, asking Judge Alikhan to extend her order permanently, striking down the EO in its entirety. In the two weeks since, thousands of lawyers, law firms, law professors, and law students have filed amici curiae briefs in support of Susman’s motion for summary judgment, including our law firm.
The government has answered by asking Judge Alikhan to dismiss Susman’s lawsuit.
As of this writing, the judge has not yet ruled on the motions.
Current Posture of the Perkins Coie Lawsuit
The Perkins Coie lawsuit, which similarly sought to enjoin the President’s EO directed at that law firm, has been pending since March 11, 2025. As a result, it’s a bit farther along in the process.
Late yesterday, May 2, 2025, the court issued a permanent injunction against the Trump EO that had attacked Perkins Coie, saying “[t]he importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era.”
In her 102-page decision, District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia called the EO “an unprecedented attack” on the foundational principles of law that are enshrined in the United States Constitution. She concluded that the EO against Perkins Coie is unconstitutional and cannot stand.
For our lawyer friends, it’s worth a read.
The government is expected to appeal, but an appeal has not yet been filed.
Effect on Law Firms and Companies That Do Business With Law Firms
Aside from confusion and fear, these types of EOs could have other effects on law firms and other businesses. The EOs can be interpreted to threaten that law firms – and other businesses – which are in President Trump’s opinion “detrimental to critical American interests,” will or could be targeted by the federal government.
That, of course, is chilling.
For law firms, this could mean your representing a corporate client that opposes the current government could make you a potential target. It also could cause potential clients to fearfully abstain from choosing law firms that oppose – or represent other clients that oppose – the President.
Although the EOs have not yet targeted individual small businesses, some of the EOs now have targeted non-profit organizations, such as National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
This, no doubt, is a slippery slope.
Hope and Firm Resolve
The Coppola Firm believes in the rule of law. Moreover, our attorneys, collectively representing hundreds of years in practice, rely on it everyday.
We all pledge our loyalty to the rule of law – to the United States and New York Constitutions – and we’ll continue to remain firm in our allegiance to these bedrock principles. The oath that we take, as required by New York Judiciary Law § 466, says:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor-at-law to the best of my ability.
We encourage other lawyers and law firms to reaffirm their commitment to the rule of law as well. We do that in word and also in our actions – by working diligently, following the law, and advocating to the best of our ability.
Next Steps
For clients, whether individuals or companies, small, large, for-profit, or not-for-profit, you have to right to ask your attorneys – indeed, please ask us! – if we are committed to the rule of law. As we’ve written before, the law is the foundation of our Nation. And, yes, it changes over time. It morphs and expands – and sometimes contracts – but it’s expected to be consistently and fairly applied to all. That was the Founders’ promise.
For now, we encourage our friends to keep running their businesses how they normally would. Rely on legal counsel to help you make informed decisions on issues that may implicate federal or New York State law.
And if you’re an attorney, stay up to date on the litigation surrounding EOs against law firms. Feel free to call or write us if you have concerns. We’re committed to the rule of law and to sound ethics – and we will advocate for both.
